“The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard.”

These are not my words, but those of Surgeon General Richard Carmona. His remarks accompanied the release of a 700-page updated report that cites “massive and conclusive scientific evidence” of the alarming public health risk posed by secondhand smoke.

Furthermore, the risks are not mitigated by non-smoking sections or “smoke eater” ventilation systems. Non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke have as much as a 30% greater risk of heart disease and cancer. There is significant risk from even brief exposure.

Only smoking bans are effective in reducing the risk. Unfortunately, smoking will never be banned in the home, and children are at unusually high-risk. Second-hand smoke, like global warming, is an inconvenient truth. The debate is over, but thanks in no small part to the wealth of tobacco companies, the foot-dragging has just begun.

Health professionals fear that youngsters do not get enough Omega-3 in a daily diet dominated by modern convenience foods. They believe a lack of these nutrients can contribute to poor learning, disorder and violence in the classroom. So it is proposed that schoolchildren in Great Britain be given daily supplements of 500mg of Omega-3. In fact, nearly everyone can benefit from Omega-3 fish oil supplements.

Omega-3 fatty acids play a crucial role in brain-cell development. In fact, more than half of the fat from which the brain is built is made of an Omega-3 called docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). A new report says there has been an 80 per cent decline in the average intake of fatty acids over the past century. According to the report in the London-based Journal of Perinatology, “The health and well-being of the child in the short and long term appears to be improved by the availability of adequate amounts of Omega-3 during fetal and postnatal development. Deficiency is a common problem and may be a contributing factor for certain maternal and paediatric health problems.” Read the article here.

In 2004, pharmaceutical giant Merck pulled its painkiller Vioxx from the market because of heart problems, strokes and death among participants of a large study under way at the time. The untold story, before now, is that Merck had conducted another large study in 1999, and although similar heart problems were revealed, that study was not stopped and the problems not made public. That’s because a “safety panel” monitoring the study did not intervene even though there were clearly more cardiac events with the group taking Vioxx compared to the group taking naproxen. The problems appeared after just 4-6 weeks. Why did this happen? Believe it or not, one of the panel’s members was a Merck employee, another lied about ties to Merck, and when rheumatologist Michael Weinblatt of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston was appointed head the safety panel, he owned $73,000 of Merck stock!

NPR interviewed three scientists who are authorities on heart disease and clinical studies. Their findings and more about the conflict of interest that, according to the FDA’s own scientist, cost the lives of 38,000 Vioxx users over 5 years are detailed at npr.org. For more see “Conflicted Safety Panel Let Vioxx Study Continue”